What is the "Crisis"?

[MrS]

Why the hateful and condescending sarcasm all the time, followed in the next line by calls for charity?

Do you not even see it?

Why are you here?

DustinsDad

DustinsDad, there is an agenda going on here… there are three posters who seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose, the content, and the effects of VATII, and they have a disconnect with the “spirit of VATII”.

It will lead to the continuing level of charity they exhibit… and a continuing tirade of accusations against those who call them on it…

Posters or visitors here may quickly see this “situation” as they view this and other threads, and become acquainted with the “active participation” of the three.

You, and many others have tried admirably to explain a postition they cannot accept. You should be commended for your efforts, and I would have PM’d you, but these things need to be said openly. After all, charity and truth do work well together… CAF members and visitors deserve that. Thanks.

.

 

[japhy]

Wonderful! Thank you for your research. You have done a fabulous job!

mgrfin, could you please try a little harder to properly quote? You keep chopping off 's and ]'s from the ‘QUOTE’ tag and it makes it difficult to follow the conversation. I’m assuming you’re referring here to my post about Liturgiam Authenticam and pro multis.

1. You are reading the statement like an American. Try reading like an Italian. There is a different level of imperative when you consider and compare both cultures.

Is this the “Roman Law” argument? Here’s what a priest told me: “Roman law is seen as a goal to be achieved (and not always realized); English law express what is expected at the moment. Americans, in the English tradition, think that the law should be observed to its particulars. One most interpret Roman law as Roman law, recognizing that the English attitude is somewhat inappropriate, and may even be misleading.” Is this what you’re also telling me? Then, in that case, why should we (or our priests or bishops) obey any law from the Church? If an “imperative” from the Vatican is different from an “imperative” in English, why bother? In other words, what is there preventing our bishops and priests from pastorally implementing the directives from Rome? What’s stopping all priests from wearing their stoles under their chasubles, for instance? What’s stopping all priests from letting lay people give homilies? What’s stopping priests from deviating from the liturgical texts?

On the topic: why shouldn’t our Bishops produce a translation of the latest editio typica of the Roman Missal faithful to the directives from Rome? Why not?!

1. The translation which has been approved for us is the 1973 English translation of the Missale Romanum - this translation has been accepted by the teaching Magisterium.

Yes, but there is a new Latin Missal, as of 2000 (or 2002, I don’t remember now). We’ve gone at least 5 years without an English translation, and one is currently in the works. Once it is released, that will be the “translation which has been approved for us … by the teaching Magisterium”. As the letter from Cardinal Estevez shows, there are deficiencies in the 1985 English translation of the Missal, and there were worse deficiencies in the proposed recent translation. These are being corrected.

 

[mgrfin]

.

I don’t know about your argument about the law. A little too philosophical about something I am not familiar with.

What one teacher said to me: “Italians say, American obey”.

But that wasn’t the point of my post.

Please re-read my post #279 again.

You are waiting for a new translation. These things take time, and the English/American contingent of bishops have other fish to fry than a new translation of the Roman Missal. Such things as new sets of books for everyone is expensive. I don’t see the translation as necessary for me. I have in my copy of Missale Romanum - 1964 is fine.

Will the new translation include Old and New Testament readings, including the psalms. If true, that further corrupts our Sacred Scripture.
Do you expect to see ‘pro multis’ translated as ‘for all’ or ‘for many’? As I pointed out, it is not essential to the form of the sacrament. All those concerned with ‘universal salvation’ may care, but my understanding of the words make it a non-event.

Prayer and charity to all who post here.

peace

 

[japhy]

What one teacher said to me: “Italians say, American obey”.

Ok. I’m still curious how you understand the directives in Liturgiam Authenticam and the two letters about proper translation of the Missal.

You are waiting for a new translation. These things take time, and the English/American contingent of bishops have other fish to fry than a new translation of the Roman Missal. Such things as new sets of books for everyone is expensive. I don’t see the translation as necessary for me. I have in my copy of Missale Romanum - 1964 is fine.

The Bishops offered a translation a few years ago, but it was even worse than the current one! Of course a good translation takes time, but if they had started with efforts for a good translation, we wouldn’t still be waiting; at least, we wouldn’t be where we’re at now.

I know that copies of the books will be expensive. Parishes should be willing to support this need, though. I bought the 1985 chapel-sized sacramentary for $55; the larger-size one is I think around $150. Perhaps particular benefactors at each parish could make a donation to the parish for the express purpose of buying new texts.

I don’t know what the 1964 comment is in there for…

Will the new translation include Old and New Testament readings, including the psalms. If true, that further corrupts our Sacred Scripture.

I’m really not sure what you mean. Anyway, as far as I know, the current translation work is on the “Sacramentary”, not the Lectionary.

Do you expect to see ‘pro multis’ translated as ‘for all’ or ‘for many’? As I pointed out, it is not essential to the form of the sacrament. All those concerned with ‘universal salvation’ may care, but my understanding of the words make it a non-event.

I certainly do expect that pro multis will be translated as “for [the] many”, if only because the Holy See has expressly requested it to be done, and also because that’s a faithful translation of the Latin (and the Gospels). It’s important (to me and many other Catholics) that the Mass (in whatever language it is celebrated) reflect accurately our Catholic faith, and have as few occasions for confusion or misinterpretation as possible.

 

[peary]

peary;3393692:

You are saying that the Words of Consecration must be translated from the Latin. There is no truth to that.

I am? That’s news to me!

The teaching Magisterium of the Church has said that the words of Consecration are: 'for all" It doesn’t changed the form of the sacrament, and those words are valid for the Consecration of the wine.

The teaching Magisterium has recently changed the translation back to what was written in the Latin. This will go into effect in the next two years.

The nay-sayers of Vatican 2 would like to smear that this is "universal salvation’ in whatever bad sense this is (apocatastasis), which it is not. Christ died for all mankind; his salvation is for all mankind. Not everyone accepts salvation, so do not receive it.

My understanding of “universal salvation” is that salvation is offered for all human beings. Nothing was ever posted by me suggesting that everyone is ‘saved’, which is a theological error.

Theologically, the english words of consecration of these words is accepted by the teaching Magisterium.

Say it over and over it: 'get over it".

I don’t have to “get over” anything except, perhaps, your arrogance.

 

[DustinsDad]

DustinsDad, there is an agenda going on here… there are three posters who seem to have a gross misunderstanding of the purpose, the content, and the effects of VATII, and they have a disconnect with the “spirit of VATII”.

It will lead to the continuing level of charity they exhibit… and a continuing tirade of accusations against those who call them on it…

Posters or visitors here may quickly see this “situation” as they view this and other threads, and become acquainted with the “active participation” of the three.

You, and many others have tried admirably to explain a postition they cannot accept. You should be commended for your efforts, and I would have PM’d you, but these things need to be said openly. After all, charity and truth do work well together… CAF members and visitors deserve that. Thanks.

.

Reminds me of this sign:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Good advice - but comments such as “Universal Salvation exists…It is a doctrine of our faith” make following it hard.

How many from that list of troll characteristics have we seen in the last week or so? Kind of funny. Well it would be if the topic wasn’t so eternally serious.

Gotta keep praying.

Peace in Christ,

DustinsDad

 

[mgrfin]

bobzills;3390624:

That is not the correct picture. First of all, the fact is that the words for the Consecration of the wine have been mistranslated so that pro multis is mistranslated as “for all.” Why has this been done except to hint at the possibility of universal salvation. QUOTE]

**Once the gentiles were included, ALL were included in salvation. In fact, go read the book of ACTS. One can translate pro multis as meaning “for the multitude” (“for the many”… for the many WHAT? Those that hear the Word of God and keep it! And I don’t think you can mix apples and oranges here.).

If there were no universal salvation, then why do we have missionary orders whose priests, brothers, and good sisters risking their lives going to foreign lands proclaiming the Gospel if the Church didn’t believe in universal salvation? Missionary orders have been around since Christ’s mandate to go to the ends of the earth and proclaim the Good News and baptize all men (obviously this includes women too). You view of salvation is way too slanted and may be your undoing in the long run. Careful!**

I think Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind. His redemptive act did not exclude anyone, even those who put him to death.

Salvation is up to each of us to accept or to reject. As Catholics we don’t believe in OSAS.

Maybe, the reason why those who translated the words of the Consecration had this in mind: translating 'pro multis" as ‘for all’.

Prayers and charity to all who post here.

peace

 

[mgrfin]

QUOTE]
The Catholic Church in America will do what it is told when it is told. As I always have done, I personally will conform.

Up to now, there is nothing invalidating about the translation ‘for all’ which has been our point.

Others seem to be making of it a theological argument that these words translated as ‘for all’ seem to imply something heretical, which they don’t.

If there was something extremely serious about it. they would have made the change immediately. But no, we are waiting for the translation that has been promised.

I think Arinze has retired and Benedict is still the pope.

prayers and charity to all who post here.

peace

 

[MrS]

peary;3393692:

I think Jesus Christ died on the cross for all mankind. His redemptive act did not exclude anyone, even those who put him to death.

Salvation is up to each of us to accept or to reject. As Catholics we don’t believe in OSAS.

Maybe, the reason why those who translated the words of the Consecration had this in mind: translating 'pro multis" as ‘for all’.

Prayers and charity to all who post here.

peace

This is true. The death of Christ allowed for the gates of heaven to be open, and entry to eternal happiness was made available to all. But our cooperation is necessary for our salvation.

I have a questions… how would you answer this: “Did God die on the cross?”

 

[bobzills]

The topic here is “what is the crisis?” In reading through the thread, I would say that one aspect of the present crisis is that Roman Catholics cannot agree as to whether “pro multis” means “for all” or “for many”. One group of Catholics insists that it means “for all” and that is the proper translation. And they say that this is clear because it is the officially approved translation. Another group of Catholics insists that the correct translation of “pro multis” is “for many.” And they cite the Catechism of the Council of Trent, and the fact that in many European countries the term is translated as “for many.” Further, Cardinal Arinze and the Vatican Congregation for the Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments has declared that:
There are, however, many arguments in favour of a more precise rendering of the traditional formula pro multis:

a. The Synoptic Gospels (Mt 26,28; Mk 14,24) make specific reference to “many” (pollvn) for whom the Lord is offering the Sacrifice, and this wording has been emphasized by some biblical scholars in connection with the words of the prophet Isaiah (53, 11-12). It would have been entirely possible in the Gospel texts to have said “for all” (for example, cf. Luke 12,41); instead, the formula given in the institution narrative is “for many”, and the words have been faithfully translated thus in most modern biblical versions.

b. The Roman Rite in Latin has always said pro multis and never pro omnibus in the consecration of the chalice.

c. The anaphoras of the various Oriental Rites, whether in Greek, Syriac, Armenian, the Slavic languages, etc., contain the verbal equivalent of the Latin pro multis in their respective languages.

d. “For many” is a faithful translation of pro multis, whereas “for all” is rather an explanation of the sort that belongs properly to catechesis.

e. The expression “for many”, while remaining open to the inclusion of each human person, is reflective also of the fact that this salvation is not brought about in some mechanistic way, without one’s willing or participation; rather, the believer is invited to accept in faith the gift that is being offered and to receive the supernatural life that is given to those who participate in this mystery, living it out in their lives as well so as to be numbered among the “many” to whom the text refers.

f. In line with the Instruction Liturgiam authenticam, effort should be made to be more faithful to the Latin texts in the typical editions.
The Bishops’ Conferences of those countries where the formula “for all” or its equivalent is currently in use are therefore requested to undertake the necessary catechesis of the faithful on this matter in the next one or two years to prepare them for the introduction of a precise vernacular translation of the formula pro multis (e.g, “for many”, “per molti”, etc.) in the next translation of the Roman Missal that the Bishops and the Holy See will approve for use in their country.

So this itself is indication of a crisis situation where Roman Catholics do not agree among themselves on the correct translation of the term “pro multis.”

 

[bobzills]

His point may well be valid. If the marriage didn’t “stick”, then it likely was flawed to begin with, no? Kind or a broad statement, but there is a modcum of truth to it.

Well, is this not another indication of a crisis in the Church - that just about any marriage can be annulled? If just about any marriage can be annulled, then who out there in the Catholic world is Sacramentally married? And why have the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage? I mean, if just about any marriage can be annulled anyway, why bother to say that marriage is indissoluble? The statement on the indissolublity of marriage seems like an empty statement to make if no one is actually married in the first place?

 

[mgrfin]

You will find what you are looking for in CCC Qq. 595-623.

prayers and charity to all who post here.

peace

 

[po18guy]

In many threads, reference is made to the “Crisis” in the Catholic Church today.

EXCLUDING sexual abuse/pedophilia, Please elaborate as to what you see as the “Crisis” or “Crises” (plural) in the Catholic Church today.

I see the “crisis” as not confined to the Catholic Church, but rather the abject lack of Christian unity. The Body of Christ is rent asunder while satan’s body remains unified in evil. Any wonder the world looks like it does?

I fear what it will take to unify the Body once again. When it occurs, it will likely make scenes from the “Ten Commandments” look like slapstick.

Lord, have mercy.

 

[mgrfin]

Well, is this not another indication of a crisis in the Church - that just about any marriage can be annulled? If just about any marriage can be annulled, then who out there in the Catholic world is Sacramentally married? And why have the doctrine on the indissolubility of marriage? I mean, if just about any marriage can be annulled anyway, why bother to say that marriage is indissoluble? The statement on the indissolublity of marriage seems like an empty statement to make if no one is actually married in the first place?

An annulment in the Catholic Church is not granted unless the parties have obtained a decree of civil divorce.

That is proof to the Church that the marriage is already broken. The local Metropolitan Tribunal takes it from there - take applications, statements, etc. The Defensor Vinculi is there to protect the bond of matrimony. If the First Tribunal finds in favor of a declaration of nullity, it is automatically sent to another Tribunal of another Diocese to get an additional sets of eyes to look at what has transpired.

When and if the Second Tribunal agrees, then the original Tribunal sends notice of determination of nullity, and on what grounds.

If one of the parties is unhappy with the final decision, as granted by the Second Curia, then it may be sent on to Rome for an appeal.

prayers and charity for all who post here.

 

[MaryJohnZ]

If we are going to get into modern psychological approaches to things we are really going to open up a can of worms!

People with different degrees of maturity have been getting married for centuries, and after all people say their vows on their wedding day but you really become married over time as you live out your vocation. My parents were not always a perfect couple in complete psychological harmony yet they lived in faithfulness and
loved the imperfect person they each were and that is what marriage really consists of, living out the Christian model of self sacrifice and desiring the other person’s wellfare, spiritually, emotionally and physically. If anything it is a tendency to think that marriage is about satisfying the needs soley of the self that there are many who throw in the towel and go for divorce.

I have read that each marriage has a “dark night” just as a person does in their spiritual life, and I would be believe that it is so…

But can you not see that most elements of human life have a corresponding spiritual relationship and you need to see both.

At times I wonder if some young men are not receiving Holy Orders without truly understanding that sacrament…without really giving a consent to what they are vowing. I know Priests can
leave the priesthood but in general they never lose the mark of a priest. If a married person can be given an annulment based on not knowing or understanding marriage, why not a Priest? Have all our seminaries really prepared them to understand and live that vocation which is likewise a vocation of selfless sacrifice.

I saw a retirement mass where the Priest sang to the congregation " Let me call you sweetheart, I’m in love with you…"
and I felt that he was truly a Priest who understood his vocation and had lived it. He BECAME a Priest…as he worked out his vocation, just as I am BECOMING a wife as i work out mine…

MaryJohnZ

 

[Brother_John]

I saw a retirement mass where the Priest sang to the congregation " Let me call you sweetheart, I’m in love with you…"

The traditionalists must have passed out in their pews !

 

[stmaria]

The traditionalists must have passed out in their pews !

Not at all. A priest is married to the Church and the parish is his family.

 

[japhy]

The Catholic Church in America will do what it is told when it is told. As I always have done, I personally will conform.

Well, the “Catholic Church in America” doesn’t always seem to do what it is told when it is told. For instance, EMsHC still purify the sacred vessels, despite the USCCB being told the indult permitted that action is no longer in effect. That Catholic Church in America has been told… and yet they do not comply.

Up to now, there is nothing invalidating about the translation ‘for all’ which has been our point. Others seem to be making of it a theological argument that these words translated as ‘for all’ seem to imply something heretical, which they don’t. If there was something extremely serious about it. they would have made the change immediately. But no, we are waiting for the translation that has been promised.

The translation is not heretical, but it requires explanation to prevent some people from thinking the Catholic Church teaches the false doctrine of “universal salvation” (whereby I mean that everyone is saved). Just because it’s not heretical does not mean there’s not “a theological argument”, since the CDWDS explained the reason for translating pro multis as “for [the] many” in multiple ways, including theological (while affirming there is no threat to validity of the Sacrament with the current translation).

I think Arinze has retired and Benedict is still the pope.

What does Cardinal Arinze’s retirement have to do with this? The letter he wrote in 2006 was from the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments. It says: “The replies received from the Bishops’ Conferences were studied by the two Congregations and a report was made to the Holy Father. At his direction, this Congregation now writes to Your Eminence / Your Excellency in the following terms…” In other words, the letter Cardinal Arinze wrote was on behalf of the Congregation (not from himself alone) and was at the direction of Pope Benedict. Its decision still stands.

 

[MrS]

MrS;3395366:

You will find what you are looking for in CCC Qq. 595-623.

prayers and charity to all who post here.

peace

Sorry, I was hoping that you might offer your answer in your words. Guess not huh?

 

[MaryJohnZ]

Not at all. A priest is married to the Church and the parish is his family.

That is what I mean…how many really see the image of a "bride’ or a beloved family member in their Parishoners, including that “bothersome lay person”, … The few times I have felt that love actually did shine through the eyes of a Priest, those were very blessed moments. I know it has to be the reverse as well, Jesus has to look through my eyes at the Priest…

This week I was part os several conversations about confession, apparently the normal Parish reconciliation service for Lent wasn’t going to be held because there were not enough Priests for the crowd. Some friends were on a retreat over the weekend and the Priest told them that a good confession should take 3 minutes…

Others mentioned that during the typical half hour which is on the bulliten for weekly confessions they have a hard time getting in…

and then this morning someone told me a friend they had in the nursing home said “I am so glad they did away with confessions, now I don’t have to confess all those little sins…”

SIGH>>>>> What can I say to all that? If you bury your gifts, you do lose them…

I have heard prophecies that the Church in America would lose the Eucharist (Christine Gallagher, Ireland) and I was thinking about that today and how even if
there is a mass and communion is handed out, if no one receiving really believes, even though the Sacrament is always the Real Presence, the faithful have lost the ability to really receive that Presence with their none-belief…

hence a possible way to essentially lose the Eucharist…

Sometimes we have the mistaken view that it all depends on the Priest!

Mary, Protectress of our Faith, Please Pray for us!
Mary, Help of Christians, Intercede for us!
O Lord, make haste to help us…

MaryJohnZ